You probably all read the paper or an article about the new Hothouse paper
https://www.cell.com/one-earth/abstract/S2590-3322(25)00391-4

I was thinking... how come, the scientists involved still take the global and long-term perspective when they surely must know that it is incapable of getting the urgency across?

Alright the first Hothouse paper from 2018 was the one that shook ME awake https://pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1810141115 So another take along the same lines is warranted assuming that it can have a similar effect on a newly awakened citizenry.

But IMO, societally-relevant research and publications should no longer take the global and long-term perspective.

For example, look at the UK National Security Briefing where scientists (and a general) lecture us on the dire future for UK citizens. Everyone in the audience faces these threats in their own lifetime and in their own neighbourhood.
The presenting scientists deliberately chose the near-term worst-case scenario results (from peer-reviewed research).
My perception is that since the NE briefing, a growing group of British climate and ecology scientists are bolder in their messaging.

They let go the un-emotional, balanced, number- and uncertainty-laden "would" "could" "might" language. They let go the language of their professional pride, so to say.

In order to convey societally relevant research results.

#climateChange #SciCom #UKNationalEmergencyBriefing #Hothouseearth